The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1887-06-05
JUDGE R1TrENnousE ON LorE
lHis Remarkable Decision In Divorce Case
in which Pusiiist Mitchell was Interested.


property which Moldrum had given to his vito
before they were divorced. Mary .Moldrum
was formerly Mary. or Polly, Bond, as she was
called, u bright. Intelligent girl, who resided on
her fathers, Joseph Bonds. ranch at Delta.
Whom Mary was only Is years old her parents,
te!nod at tho ranch Charley Mitchell, the "a.
sne aney 70 Mary as oen
s s syhysh for Ss tS
NJ Bona Bona who kd s atsSs @ %
scented to this, and Mitchell and Polly, as no
enee for a's soms weeks when Poly took irish
offence at something, and the correspondence
broSGnt tS an END miner from
the San Juan, and made violent love to little
Polly Who s said at lSngth t2
parents, Wien Medium was married he had
just sold his interest in the Yankee Girl mine
Tor handsome sum, and prospects were good
East promised her % diamond necklace which
q man who is possessed by the rosy little god
S&G wh aU cy # Sana
was spent at tho mines. and no desired his wife
Suddenly Polly got IN idea Of locating in
California; She went there. and accdentally
met her friend Nettie. Goldsmith. formerly OF
Leadville, there. and the two planned girlish
esesdS by which p nut Msb her Pagg
Bond Later Polly decided that she did not
want to liye in California. and when she came
joke she had played upon Mitchell. begging his
From that time on Meldrum Il is said grew
Mitchell. This finally, SO exasper,ated his wife
uron such q separation, and in that CONVERSE
ton Mary claims that she agreed to- reconyey
s s1 % a Rs s4 E9sh he e he
divorce de s himself. Mrs. Medium Claims that
Contract but that in her absence Medium fled
cross bill for the reconveyance OF this prop
to him tho ranch S at Delta. Medium claims
Polk had been HS na Sat aba
her, that 81 she had deesSsd Sm
Poly claims that her friendship for Mitchell
Ehf 5 m a abo he adnse
where Medium had taken her to see a min
strel troupe with whom Mitchell was posing as
The opinion Of the court Is as follows;
Thoss The paptb 1 snd
hs usual Of eSd on
1856. that being the birthday 81 defendant, this
first CONVEYANCE In controyersy was made. and
r"ary, 1886; ana this suit is Brought to set
Of Sens obSned BY
ant on the plaintiff they, being conveyances
without what is known IN law as reliable con-
~, The Court is satisfied from the evidence
afterwards, the plaintiff was deeply in love with
the defendant to that extent which with men
is infatYation almost; and the Court is further
wards the defendant did not at any time love
the plaintiff. and that In one sense OF the word
the marriage on her part was for merconary
motiye that is. in one sense she married him
for his money: .,.o ,u,,,
wealthy. prosperous, will furnish her good
home and she will play upon him to have him
round her with luxury and comfort, although
she has no affection for him, but II she intends
tim he To S st R
because it is apparent to the Court that many
of the marriages in this aEe and time are inst
duct is uneIceptionable. 20 court will set aside
because the wife does not love her husband,
or because tho husband does not love the wife.
eTous sGY ove and
determine where the standard Is that will sup
port or defeat CONVEYANCE. 1t Is beyond the
so long as this defendant Intended and .pur-
posed to continue TO be the wife OF the plaintiff
and TO her eendf Rm and tho %
that Of q respectable wife. the Court can find
no fault with her, although aa It believes there
nit appears to the Court. that she married
him without love, believing that he was wealthy
Found ReF with eoors and and
her purpose was to make tho best OF it. III
though 1t was barren to her heart. and that
and at the time Of this first conveyance; and
that the first sonveyanee made on the Sd day
voluntary deed Of gift by this man in consid::
Grafton Of love and affection. or rather moved
BY love and affection toward his wife and the
That she may solicit such things I think
there can be nc, controversy At her solicita-
for tho ranch in Dolta. And, the Court cannot
aa his Gea that after
that time this feeling Which is descrbed by the
defendant herself as love and affection but
ton. but only toleration-simply liberation Of
hs OF @ n fW i s ba
been undergoing. perhaps prior to this time.
ton growing into gradual indifference to him
until 1t passed tho line Of Indifference and be-
came dislike; and ripened from that into an
tlpaluy ana DISGUST ana ueSDhlT, anu tHaL Sno
reached point whore hato became the domi-
naut passion, hate toward him, utter dislike,
utter disgust; and that then she conceived the
design that she would obtain from him all that
was possible and then abandon him.
As n mere moral matter the Court does not
look upon that as anything particularly helm
ton to, disgust 1t is one Of the things that
even philosophers cannot trace: and the emo
tions OF love and hate are entirely Independent
OF the will. 1t is not any particular act that a
person does that makes one love or hate. 1t Is
an indeflnable .something-a force between
two individuals that causes these emotions OF
love and hate, and no human, philosophy can
pear to the Court to be particularly dark and
henous: il, is only tho purpose, that is formed
rs the result OF this; and even that may be OK
eusa,ble upona moral grounds i i is not upon
suited from this disgust, that ended In despair
and In her getting property from her husband
to her own use and benefit and then abandon
Ing him and ceGsing to live with him as his
wife. A ruse OF loving.
The Court fails to discover any particularly
offensive thing In tho alleged relations exist
ing between this woman and Mitchell. Per-
hays there was. but the proof don't disclose 1t
sufficiently to believe that 1t ever amounted to
criminal intimacy There was doubtless a